Chocolate Cake and Sidebars has the synopsis:
Everyone seems to agree the rifle could not have gone off accidentally. But what do you think about that expert witness and his description of the gun? I didn't think he made a very good case for banning guns like this one. I can already hear all the pro-gun responses to his remarks. But, one interesting thing was the fact that it comes from Israel in parts and in assembled in the U.S. Is that a way of skirting some laws?May 17, 2008, police responded to an “accidental shooting” in Fort Meyers Florida. Upon arriving, police found Amy Boscarino on the floor suffering from a gunshot wound to the neck. After an unsuccessful CPR attempt and EMS arrival, she was pronounced dead at the scene.
After further investigation, deputies found that it wasn’t actually an accident. Schack’s claim was that he adjusted the scope on his rifle when the gun went off accidentally as it fell from a dresser. Witnesses and friends state that their relationship had problems and it became clear that this was more than an accident and a resulting warrant was issued for Mark Schack.
He is charged with second-degree murder, which carries a minimum 25 years in prison and a maximum of life.
Verdict:
After deliberating for just an hour, jurors came back with a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder. Sentencing was held Feb 1, 2010 where he was sentenced to life in prison.
Another thing I didn't like about his explanation was all that talk about the velocity of the bullet. Why the interviewer didn't ask how that compares to other rifles makes me wonder if he was even listening. The fact that the round travels faster than the speed of sound doesn't strike me like something that should elicit a "wow." In fact it means absolutely nothing unless we know how it compares to other guns. What do you think? Do some bullets travel slower than the speed of sound? Does it really matter? Is that what makes this weapon objectionable?
What I felt was not made adequately clear in the piece was the question of why would someone what to own a gun like this? I know that question is roundly dismissed by pro-gun folks and even mocked by some, but I think it's a good one. I realize it's difficult to define a military assault weapon in such a way that ordinary hunting guns are not included, but the question remains, why would someone want to own one of these?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Wow. Where to even start with this piece? I guess I will start with Ryan’s Smith implication that if a gun is scary (looks military) it should be handled with an extra degree of care. All guns require maximum attention to safety, Ryan. All of them.
ReplyDeleteThank you MikeB for acknowledging the flaws in Dan Austin’s rant. The .223 is one of the fastest commercial rounds, but he never mentions why. It’s because it is very small and very light. I’d bet Mr. Austin has a problem with big heavy bullets too. To answer your question Mike, yes there are special subsonic rounds. But those are “deadly assassin bullets” because there is no sonic crack /S. A sound suppressor can not dampen the loud noise of a sonic crack. I got a kick out of his saying it is suitable for safari big game hunters. If Mr. Austin had a Galil with a full 30 round mag of .223 vs. a bull elephant in the Serengeti, I’m putting a lot of money down on the pissed off charging elephant.
“I realize it's difficult to define a military assault weapon in such a way that ordinary hunting guns are not included, but the question remains, why would someone want to own one of these?”
What do you mean by “one of these”? A gun? Or a semi-auto gun? I thought we have been through why we want to own guns, and this one is no different.
-TS
"Is that a way of skirting some laws?"
ReplyDeleteOnly if you're of the Brady Campaign/VPC mentality where complying with the law is "skirting" the law.
And LOL @ the so-called "expert witness" saying you can kill tigers, lions, and bears with a caliber that was invented for varmint and small game hunting. I'd pay good money to see him and Josh Sugarmann go tiger, lion, or bear hunting with that rifle. There would definitely be one less hungry tiger, lion, or bear.
"Do some bullets travel slower than the speed of sound?"
Yeah. Quite a few do.
"Does it really matter?"
No.
"What I felt was not made adequately clear in the piece was the question of why would someone what to own a gun like this?"
With a lightweight, soft-point bullet, it makes a good home defense gun. Especially for those adverse to recoil. If you live in the sticks, it's good for shooting coyotes, bobcats, and other similar sized animals. It's also a good SHTF/zombie gun. In a natural or man-made disaster, there is no better gun than one based on a common, reliable design that uses common ammunition. Plus, they are just fun to shoot. All good reasons to have that gun.
"I realize it's difficult to define a military assault weapon in such a way that ordinary hunting guns are not included, but the question remains, why would someone want to own one of these?"
Even if you could define a "military assault weapon", there is no good reason to ban them. Out of all the things that kill people in America, their existence is inconsequential. And even if you could come up with a good reason, you'd be going up against the "common use" clause of Heller.
Ok, I'll say it: Their "expert" is a fool.
ReplyDeleteLaci's Wiki based gun knowledge is more impressive, not to mention more accurate, than this tool.
What strikes me most about this segment is that all of the focus is on what kind of gun was used and it's characteristics. OMG, it's got a side-folding stock!!! In reality, the woman was shot in the neck with one bullet. Nearly any caliber of bullet from nearly any gun would have killed her in this instance. From the range she was shot, the muzzle velocity would be inconsequential. So why such a strong focus on the gun? The sooner we hold criminals accountable for their actions and not for the tools they use, the better off we will be as a society.
ReplyDeleteGood grief! The two of them combined have less knowledge of firearms than my wife!
ReplyDeleteI love the panty-wetting fear that the host has talking about the rifle, like it possesses some sort of evil that cannot be contained. Just hilarious.
"You're making me think it might be used as rifle when you're tring to really aim and hit something."
Gee, isn't that kind of the point of any gun? Or are we just supposed to sling lead down range with no actual idea of where the rounds are going? What the hell is the little post on the front of the rifle for, anyway? Am I supposed to use that? They call that a sight? Site? Cite?
Whatever, just try to really aim and hit something, okay?
"You know, in the greater scheme of things, Ryan, this is a weapon that kills."
Priceless!
Hey gene-yuss, this was a weapon that was USED to kill, but it doesn't mean that it kills. It can be used to kill, that doesn't mean it always kills. As the MCM puts it, if guns kill, mine are defective.
"This is a serious, serious weapon. They call it a sporting rifle. You know what, it's an outright military assault rifle. I don't care what anybody tells me."
Truer words were never spoken by an anti-gun ex-NYPD "firearms expert" forensic detective. He truly does not let facts get in his way to trample the truth or deny "common citizens" their right to keep and bear arms.
That rifle is no more an assault rifle than any AR-15. It is patterned on the assault rifle, but it is not an assault rifle.
Goodness, I had to watch that three times just to hear it and not laugh out loud at the stupidity of taking a .223 on a safari. Good luck with that.
Let me know if you can hire even one guide, anywhere in the world, when you tell him that you're going to use a .223 to take down big game like elephants, lions, tigers or bears.
Thanks for the entertainment, Mikeb.
Shrimp said: Let me know if you can hire even one guide, anywhere in the world, when you tell him that you're going to use a .223 to take down big game like elephants, lions, tigers or bears.
ReplyDeleteOr even deer. Many states do not allow you to hunt them with a .223 because it is too small a caliber to adequately kill them.
And what the hell does “highly sophisticated” mean? Is the gun well versed in 18th century French poetry?
ReplyDelete-TS
Only in the mind of a gun-controller is a 40 year old design "highly sophisticated".
ReplyDeleteRats!
ReplyDeleteI posted this yesterday, in the wrong thread!
"I don't know about this weapon, but I think that back in the 70's and 80's the poachers in Africa were shooting elephants with M-16's and AK-47's. Not a big slug, but you can put a lot of them on target in a hurry.
It appears that someone else has a better idea, though:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318717
Shrimp, Even I thought that guy was pretty wild, I know you'd love it. Guys like those two, interviewer and interviewee, who give gun control people a bad name. No wonder you make fun of us.
ReplyDeleteBut, my question stands. "Why would someone want to own one of those?" That's not to say they're worse or more deadly or anything. The question is literally what it says.
I'm guessing there are many reasons, but would you say the main one is just for fun? Someone who likes guns would probably want one just for the fun of it, no?
This gets back to the exhilaration of firing guns, which so many balk at, but that's what it is, isn't it?
I guess from our side of the debate, the better question is: Why not?
ReplyDeleteFrom a practical perspective, a black powder firearm is slow and awkward to reload (compared to a modern semi-auto), you only get one shot before you have to reload, and you can't get them wet, or they don't work.
Why would someone want to own one of those? (That's rhetorical, BTW)
The only answer that matters is, because they want one. It really doesn't matter why they want it, as long as it's legal and doesn't harm someone else.
(The in-duh-vidual in the news story harmed someone else, and now he's going to do time for it, as he should.)
As for "wanting," yes, it does come down to fun. You can call it exhilaration, enjoyment, fun, satisfaction, whatever. I do enjoy shooting guns at paper. I do it a lot. I'd do it more often if I could afford to (both time and money).
On a good day, if I'm doing well, I really enjoy it. On a bad day, well it's still fun, and even a bad day at the range is better than any day at work.
I don't play golf, but people who do tell me that there's a great amount of satisfaction from hitting that perfect shot, that hole in one. Shooting is no different.
Maybe not everyone feels that way about their guns, so maybe that's why some balk at your word choice. More's the pity, I say.
Truth be told, if I didn't enjoy shooting guns, I wouldn't do it. So, yeah, for me, there's "exhiliration" there. Or whatever word works for you.
AztecRed, About skirting the law, let me ask you this. If importing a gun into the U.S. is illegal and in order to comply with that law, the gun manufacturer delivers it in parts which need to be assembled, don't you think that's wrong.
ReplyDeleteTry making believe we're not talking about guns, which might enable you to be more open minded. Wouldn't this be a case of violating the intent of the law, similar to a criminal getting off on a technicality?
"I don't know about this weapon, but I think that back in the 70's and 80's the poachers in Africa were shooting elephants with M-16's and AK-47's. Not a big slug, but you can put a lot of them on target in a hurry"
ReplyDeleteTwo things:
1) No one is saying it is impossible to do it. We're saying that the likelihood of surviving it as a hunter is improbable, considering that the round is insufficient for that purpose. It doesn't deliver enough energy to the target.
An elephant is huge, and the .223 (or even the 7.62 X 39 that the AK uses) is simply not meant for a target of that size. It could, with a supremely lucky shot, kill the elephant. It sure isn't likely, though. Not when there are better gun and ammunition choices available.
2) Hunters on safari are not poachers, and poachers are not hunters on safari. Poachers tend to hunt in groups, all firing on the animal, then taking their "prize." They need multiple weapons and vehicles to track kill, and transport what they are taking (with elephants, that would be the feet, tusks and teeth, and the genitals).
So, many people all firing .223 or 7.62 X 39 could conceivably kill an elephant rather quickly. But that's not the same thing as a guided hunt, where the only people who are going to shoot at the elephant are the hunter, and his guide(s) if he misses or fails to kill the elephant in a timely manner.
All in all, the discussion only further reveals the complete lack of knowledge concerning firearms that the forensic detective possesses. This particular firearm is no more a great choice for safari than a spoon is for cutting butter. It could be used, but there are much better choices.
"If importing a gun into the U.S. is illegal and in order to comply with that law, the gun manufacturer delivers it in parts which need to be assembled, don't you think that's wrong."
ReplyDeleteNo, you're confusing what the law states. If it was illegal to import the weapon in pieces, then the importers (like Century Arms) would not be able to do it.
It is not illegal to import the gun in pieces. They do it because the law requires them to do so, in order to import the guns.
In other words, it is legal to import guns into the US, as long as they are disassembled.*
Hence, AztecRed's comment that the only way you can call it "skirting the law" is if you believe complying with the law is somehow skirting the law.
*I don't even know that this law is correct, because it is possible to bring in guns that have not been disassembled, or at least, it used to be. It may only be true for importers looking to resale. I'll have to do some research on that.
Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteLet's look at another aspect:
Suppose that a law says that guns with some type of part or feature are illegal to manufacture or import. So a gun manufacturer or importer removes that part or feature and sells the same gun minus that part or feature -- thus complying with the law.
It would be devious and outrageous for anyone to complain that gun manufacturers or importers had "skirted" the law, right?
Wouldn't this be a case of violating the intent of the law, similar to a criminal getting off on a technicality?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. This is a case of specifically abiding by the import regulations as they are written.
Unless of course you're claiming that complying with the law equals violating it.
"AztecRed, About skirting the law, let me ask you this. If importing a gun into the U.S. is illegal and in order to comply with that law, the gun manufacturer delivers it in parts which need to be assembled, don't you think that's wrong."
ReplyDeleteNo. Because they are complying with the law. The law says you can't import the guns. There is no law against importing the parts. And even when they import the parts, they can't import the parts to make a complete gun. In order to make a gun from the imported parts, some of the parts have to be sourced from the US.
"Try making believe we're not talking about guns, which might enable you to be more open minded. Wouldn't this be a case of violating the intent of the law, similar to a criminal getting off on a technicality?"
Violating the intent of a law isn't against the law. That just means you need to write a better law.
"*I don't even know that this law is correct, because it is possible to bring in guns that have not been disassembled, or at least, it used to be. It may only be true for importers looking to resale. I'll have to do some research on that."
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure so don't quote me on it, but this is pretty much the gist of it:
In order to import a firearm, it has must have a certain number of points based on the "sporting purposes" test. Every "evil" feature a gun has results in a deduction of points.
This essentially bans the import of most semi auto-rifles over .22 caliber and most semi-auto handguns under .380 caliber. However, you can import incomplete firearms and part kits.
For example, certain Glocks don't have enough points to be imported into the US, because they have too many evil features (barrel too short, magazine to big, caliber too small, fixed sights, etc). So Glock US imports pistols with sporting features (like adjustable target sights) and then replaces them with standard sights once they get to the US. They basically import sporting guns and de-sporterize them once they get to the US. And for their .380 caliber guns, Glock simply can't import them because there aren't enough things they can change to give them enough points to make them compliant for import.
Companies like Century Arms import part kits and add enough American made parts to essentially make the resulting gun "American Made", thus exempt from import restrictions.
In the minds of the anti, complying with the law equates to violating that law.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why the antis are so successful in court prosecuting these claims.
snark
Give it up MikeB, we win and you lose, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
You should just stick to music posts.